(without Elizabeth’s permission) during her life; the rest circulated in manuscript, some during her life, others after’. This is common with many Renaissance texts, and so one cannot fully dismiss this exchange of these poems. As Herman suggests, ‘the attendant textual issues should not obscure either the degree of Elizabeth’s poetic accomplishment or the importance of her verse for understanding the dynamics of authority’ .
The dynamic of authority evidenced in this case is Elizabeth’s playful mocking of the courtier’s lack of innovation and imagination in his poetry addresses a bigger gender issue. Her assumption that Raleigh is hiding behind Petrarchan norms, (he’s ‘so sore afraid’ and ‘dismayed’) is a total reversal of gender roles, positioning the male lover’ as a weakened individual. Elizabeth is exposing Raleigh’s true motive for writing which lay behind the heavily-allegorical sonnets of the courtier. He was vulnerable male keen to preserve favouritism, and thus turned to the literary mode of flattery, with an abundance of friendly banter, to ensure a good relationship with his queen. She however, posits if Raleigh is too stubborn to ask for help as he uses the cloak of Petrarch to instead position the Queen as a mere lover. Marriage, a constant reminder to Elizabeth of her restricting femininity, would not allow her submission. Victor Von Klarwill for example accounts Baron Caspar Breuner as stating that Elizabeth would ‘rather go into a nunnery, or for that matter suffer death, than marry against her will’. Interestingly, one can postulate that this sonnet was either recited to a private audience at court or circulated through a manuscript – perhaps both. Consequently, the sonnet declares the monarch’s superior wit and literary abilities, in addition to denouncing gendered expectations, delivered through the form of common court entertainment.
The common argument is that a monarch’s verse is an expression of complete authority. This is – or, should be – a motion abandoned. Whilst this is true to some extent – why should Henry VIII need to heighten his power as a fearful tyrant? As Jonathan Goldberg maintains a monarch surely has some ‘instrument of royal power’. The likes of Herman – with his gesticulation of the ‘political imaginary’ – would fundamentally disagree that royal power is equivalent to absolute power. He argues that monarchs write verse with the means of ‘manipulating or appropriating the political imaginary of monarchy to enhance his or her position’. I wholly support Herman’s sentiment which implies that the monarch does not write to ‘rise’ positionally – this is impossible. However, I do take issue with the verb ‘enhance’. I believe Elizabeth cannot be grouped alongside male monarchs so easily. As a sole female ruler, she needed to create power before she ‘enhanced’ it.
Elizabeth did not only have to prove to her close court and political rivals that she was capable of ruling. Upon Elizabeth’s coronation, the newly-appointed ruler had to strongly defend her right to the crown, for several reasons, including her Protestantism, but predominantly her gender – for issues already
